New apheresis indications in hematological disorders:

Apheresis education in Canadian residency programs: A needs assessment

Indications for therapeutic and donor apheresis continue to increase and expand into new domains of therapy. The level and amount of apheresis education in residency programs remains heterogeneous, which may translate into varying degrees of clinical confidence in providing care. The purpose of this study was to assess Canadian clinicians' perceptions of their apheresis training in order to help demonstrate a need for a concrete apheresis education in residency curricula. A 22-question survey was distributed to Canadian graduates who recently completed training (2013-2017) in the following specialties: hematology, nephrology, transfusion medicine, and hematologic pathology. Questions regarding clinician perception of their training were asked using a Likert scale. Fifty-seven survey responses (32% response rate) were obtained from recent graduates from hematology (29/57, 51%), nephrology (21/57, 37%), hematologic pathology (4/57, 7%) and transfusion medicine (3/57, 5%). Although most respondents (68%) received some form of apheresis exposure during residency, only 23% reported a formal apheresis rotation. Only 40% felt that the amount of time devoted to apheresis education was sufficient, and only four respondents (7%) felt confident providing independent apheresis care at the end of training. Overall, these findings suggest that a common, dedicated apheresis curriculum in these training programs could possibly increase knowledge and competence of trainees, and provide a more solid foundation in apheresis for future practice.

ADAMTS13 test and/or PLASMIC clinical score in management of acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: a cost-effective analysis

BACKGROUND

The ADAMTS13 test distinguishes thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) from other thrombotic microangiopathies (TMAs). The PLASMIC score helps determine the pretest probability of ADAMTS13 deficiency. Due to inherent limitations of both tests, and potential adverse effects and cost of unnecessary treatments, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) investigating the benefits of incorporating an in-hospital ADAMTS13 test and/or PLASMIC score into our clinical practice.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A CEA model was created to compare four scenarios for patients with TMAs, utilizing either an in-house or a send-out ADAMTS13 assay with or without prior risk stratification using PLASMIC scoring. Model variables, including probabilities and costs, were gathered from the medical literature, except for the ADAMTS13 send-out and in-house tests, which were obtained from our institutional data.

RESULTS

If only the cost is considered, in-house ADAMTS13 test for patients with intermediate- to high-risk PLASMIC score is the least expensive option ($4,732/patient). If effectiveness is assessed as measured by the number of averted deaths, send-out ADAMTS13 test is the most effective. Considering the cost/effectiveness ratio, the in-house ADAMTS13 test in patients with intermediate- to high-risk PLASMIC score is the best option, followed by the in-house ADAMTS13 test without the PLASMIC score.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with clinical presentations of TMAs, having an in-hospital ADAMTS13 test to promptly establish the diagnosis of TTP appears to be cost-effective. Utilizing the PLASMIC score further increases the cost-effectiveness of the in-house ADAMTS13 test. Our findings indicate the benefit of having a rapid and reliable in-house ADAMTS13 test, especially in the tertiary medical center.